Nikon 500 pf vs Nikon 500 f4 G ED VR lens (not the latest FL version)

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

sid_19911991

sid_19911991

Well-known member
Member's gallery
Hey folks, I would like your take/experiences on using the Nikon 500 f4 G ED VR & 500pf lens.

I currently own the 500pf, & I have an opportunity to buy a used Nikon 500 f4 G ED VR. Wondering if I should go for it.

The MTF charts suggest that the 500 PF is sharper than Nikon 500 f4 G ED VR.
I am not sure that it is entirely accurate in real-world usage.

Pros of 500pf (my piece)

1) Sharp at short distances (10 feet to 60 feet) at f5.6.
2) Fast auto focus, nearly as fast as 70-200 f2.8
3) Renders beautiful bokeh
4) Lightweight & more affordable.
5) Great for shooting slow motion video; easy to use manual focus with it for video.

Cons of 500pf (my piece)

1) Not at all sharp at a distance greater than 60-80 feet or so when shot at f5.6. 200-500 at F8 is much sharper. Sony 200-600 at f6.3 is way more sharper than 500pf.
2) VR below 1/640 is not at all good when handheld. 200-500 VR is way better.
3) Build quality is not great.


(Also, in my country there is only 500 USD difference between 500 f4 vr & 500 f4 Fl!)
 
Member's gallery
Had rented out a 500 PF and didn't like it because of its f5.6 limitations...in some cases the Bokeh looked weird...But this applies when you compare it against Nikon's super tele lenses. 500 F4 G is an incredible lens, although a bit heavy and works superb with the 1.4TC. I was using that lens before I switched to 400 2.8E.

Are you in India? If yes I don't think the price difference is only that much. Note, the G version of that lens is already discontinued and I bought the last piece in I think 2017 with a special discount from Nikon. At that time the price differential between the G and E was about 1700 USD.
 
Member's gallery
Having said that, the 500PF is such a breeze to use...the reaction times can be faster than those big teles...I just hope Nikon comes up with a 600 or 800 PF in Z mount and I'll buy one in a heartbeat.
 
Member's gallery
NorthernFocus said:
I sold my 500 f4G because after getting the PF the f4 sat on its shelf. I would buy an f4E for the right price but not the G. Lighter weight and sharper than the G.
Click to expand...
My same opinion. The copy I had of the 500 f4 G was pretty darn good. But I was only using it if I was going to sit around and shoot off a tripod for an extended period of time. The PF just proved to be much more practical for how I shoot.

Don't get me wrong there are times I still wish I had it but those times since I sold it have been few and far between.
 
Member's gallery
bsinc1962 said:
...I was only using it if I was going to sit around and shoot off a tripod for an extended period of time. The PF just proved to be much more practical for how I shoot.

Don't get me wrong there are times I still wish I had it but those times since I sold it have been few and far between.
Click to expand...
Ditto.
 
Member's gallery
thelordofthelight said:
Had rented out a 500 PF and didn't like it because of its f5.6 limitations...in some cases the Bokeh looked weird...But this applies when you compare it against Nikon's super tele lenses. 500 F4 G is an incredible lens, although a bit heavy and works superb with the 1.4TC. I was using that lens before I switched to 400 2.8E.

Are you in India? If yes I don't think the price difference is only that much. Note, the G version of that lens is already discontinued and I bought the last piece in I think 2017 with a special discount from Nikon. At that time the price differential between the G and E was about 1700 USD.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I reside in Bangalore. I guess the Nikon website prices are not accurate.
Hmmm, I guess I have to test it...
 
Member's gallery
It depends a bit on what you're looking for exactly. If you're just looking for additional sharpness, I would stick with the 500 pf.

I personally own and use both the 500 pf and 500 f4 G, however the latter is reserved for very specific use cases (low light, with a teleconverter,...). For everything else; I reach for the pf.
 
Member's gallery
I have a slightly different take on this as I am lucky enough to have the 500mm f5.6 PF and a Sigma f4 500mm Sport. I used to have a Nikkor 500mm f4 but did not really love it. I did not like its performance with a TC 14 and somehow we never bonded. So I sold it and bought the Sigma instead a couple of years later. I find the Sigma very good indeed and it is excellent with the Sigma TC1.4. It is heavier than the new Nikkor 500mm f4 but it is lighter than the Nikkor I used to own. Not by much though.

When I got the Nikkor 500 PF, my intention was to sell the Sigma but I didn't and still use it quite a lot. There is a real difference between a maximum aperture of f4 and f5.6 for all the reasons that we know. Of course, you cannot hand hold the Sigma in the same way that you can the 500 PF and you certainly cannot sling it in a shoulder bag, as I frequently do for long walks.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
sid_19911991 said:
I don't know the physics of it, but I don't think it is possible to make 600 or 800 pf Z lens at an F5.6 aperture.
Click to expand...
It’s definitely possible but the lens front element diameter will get larger. I used to own the Nikon 600mm f/5.6 P manual focus lens and if I recall correctly the front element was 112mm in diameter to support the f/5.6 aperture (theoretical minimum of 107mm). An 800mm f/5.6 lens would require a front element of at least 143mm and it would likely be 150mm or larger in a real world design. Nikon could certainly make lenses like these (they already filed a patent for the 600mm f/5.6 version ) but they wouldn’t be as small and light as the 500mm PF.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
It’s definitely possible but the lens front element diameter will get larger. I used to own the Nikon 600mm f/5.6 P manual focus lens and if I recall correctly the front element was 112mm in diameter to support the f/5.6 aperture (theoretical minimum of 107mm). An 800mm f/5.6 lens would require a front element of at least 143mm and it would likely be 150mm or larger in a real world design. Nikon could certainly make lenses like these (they already filed a patent for the 600mm f/5.6 version ) but they wouldn’t be as small and light as the 500mm PF.
Click to expand...
Personally I would like to see 600PF either 5.6 or perhaps 6.3 to keep the size similar to the 500 PF 5.6

Years ago there was a canon or nikon 500 F4.5 (done to keep the size down but at the time limited the use of TCs)
 
Member's gallery
bsinc1962 said:
My same opinion. The copy I had of the 500 f4 G was pretty darn good. But I was only using it if I was going to sit around and shoot off a tripod for an extended period of time. The PF just proved to be much more practical for how I shoot.

Don't get me wrong there are times I still wish I had it but those times since I sold it have been few and far between.
Click to expand...
Exactly my experience - the 500f4 was a “destination with tripod” lens, whereas the 500PF goes everywhere with me. (But I do regret parting with the f4… but it was daft to keep it as a shelf ornament)
 
Member's gallery
sid_19911991 said:
Hey folks, I would like your take/experiences on using the Nikon 500 f4 G ED VR & 500pf lens.

I currently own the 500pf, & I have an opportunity to buy a used Nikon 500 f4 G ED VR. Wondering if I should go for it.

The MTF charts suggest that the 500 PF is sharper than Nikon 500 f4 G ED VR.
I am not sure that it is entirely accurate in real-world usage.

Pros of 500pf (my piece)

1) Sharp at short distances (10 feet to 60 feet) at f5.6.
2) Fast auto focus, nearly as fast as 70-200 f2.8
3) Renders beautiful bokeh
4) Lightweight & more affordable.
5) Great for shooting slow motion video; easy to use manual focus with it for video.

Cons of 500pf (my piece)

1) Not at all sharp at a distance greater than 60-80 feet or so when shot at f5.6. 200-500 at F8 is much sharper. Sony 200-600 at f6.3 is way more sharper than 500pf.
2) VR below 1/640 is not at all good when handheld. 200-500 VR is way better.
3) Build quality is not great.


(Also, in my country there is only 500 USD difference between 500 f4 vr & 500 f4 Fl!)
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
I have to disagree about the “ cons”. 500PF with TCei ( the old one ). Handheld with D500.
60E323E2-5CE9-48D9-8F03-4340DD17BB2C.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
sid_19911991 said:
Hey folks, I would like your take/experiences on using the Nikon 500 f4 G ED VR & 500pf lens.

I currently own the 500pf, & I have an opportunity to buy a used Nikon 500 f4 G ED VR. Wondering if I should go for it.

The MTF charts suggest that the 500 PF is sharper than Nikon 500 f4 G ED VR.
I am not sure that it is entirely accurate in real-world usage.

Pros of 500pf (my piece)

1) Sharp at short distances (10 feet to 60 feet) at f5.6.
2) Fast auto focus, nearly as fast as 70-200 f2.8
3) Renders beautiful bokeh
4) Lightweight & more affordable.
5) Great for shooting slow motion video; easy to use manual focus with it for video.

Cons of 500pf (my piece)

1) Not at all sharp at a distance greater than 60-80 feet or so when shot at f5.6. 200-500 at F8 is much sharper. Sony 200-600 at f6.3 is way more sharper than 500pf.
2) VR below 1/640 is not at all good when handheld. 200-500 VR is way better.
3) Build quality is not great.


(Also, in my country there is only 500 USD difference between 500 f4 vr & 500 f4 Fl!)
Click to expand...

I just don't want to copy paste aournd here on the site more than necessary, so please take my apologies just to provide some links to posts I have written just before ...

https://bcgforums.com/index.php?threads/500pf-worth-it.10505/page-2#post-109270
https://bcgforums.com/index.php?thr...gestions-appreciated.10687/page-2#post-109266

IMHO: If you can get a good one of these 500 f/4G's and you can spare the money, DO IT (y).
There is only reason that would me make giving mine away and that is gettting a chance to get 600 f4 FL or an 800 f5.6 for an acceptable and affordable price. But in this case it will probably more likely that Christmas and Easter fall on one day :D.

Before I had my 500PF I thought of switchting to the 500 f4 FL, becasue it would be so much better handholdable (lighter overall and most importantly much less front heavy), but since I have the 500PF it is much less tempting to go this way, considering we are talking about a hobby.
The price difference I would have to pay for going to the FL has now been invested in turning an old Nissan Pathfinder into an overlander to enable me to travel and stay at remote places for taking pictures with my 500PF and the old 500f4 ;).
 
Member's gallery
Ultimately, you will have to go based on your focal length needs. If you need more than 500mm regularly, which in India you need all the time for birds (this calls for using a 1.4tc) the 500 F4 is the way to go...Of course the PF can work ok with the 1.4TC when using stable platforms or on relatively static subjects but it cannot perform consistently well like an F4 lens. The 500 F4s are excellent with 1.4TC even for BIF. No point in buying the 500PF for its lighter weight when you know you fall short of focal length many a time.
 
Member's gallery
sid_19911991 said:
Cons of 500pf (my piece)

1) Not at all sharp at a distance greater than 60-80 feet or so when shot at f5.6. 200-500 at F8 is much sharper. Sony 200-600 at f6.3 is way more sharper than 500pf.
2) VR below 1/640 is not at all good when handheld. 200-500 VR is way better.
3) Build quality is not great.
Click to expand...

Based on the other comments and my own experience, you may have landed a poor copy of the 500pf.

Mine is equally sharp at longer distances - I took razor sharp shots of the moon which I think is more than 80 feet away. So I am pretty confident that sharpness is not a lens issue but it may be copy specific.

The VR comment is more similar to what I experienced but I would nuance it. There is a known issue with VR and shutter shock in the 1/400s to 1/800s range in normal mode, and I have run into that problem myself. Interestingly VR seems to work quite fine at 1/250s and I have never had a problem in Sports mode at any speed.
So yes, there is a VR / speed performance issue but it's not an absolute and there are work-arounds. And it is true that the 200-500 seems immune from that problem.

I am not sure what your issue is with build quality on the 500pf but I have not found anything to complain about. Anything specific happened with yours?
It's true that the lens is not built to the same standard as the 500 f:4 (any generation) but it's in my view no different from the Sony 200-600 you referenced - they are not built to take the abuse of a press-agency but they are fine for anything short of that.

Don't get me wrong, the 500 f:4's have been my favorite lenses for a long time but there is a clear trade-off on portability and hand-holdability (well and price too if you are looking at new gear). The 500pf is the one long lens I never hesitated to grab or pack for a trip - it certainly wasn't the case with the 500 f:4's I have owned before or even the 400 f:4 DO from Canon i owned for a while. If you have a bad copy, ditch it, but it doesn't mean that lens model is bad.
 
Member's gallery
I disagree with all three cited 'Cons'. Not my experience at all.

I too sold my 500 f4 after getting the PF. I somewhat regret that, because there are times when the extra stop would be useful. I also 'feel' that there's something about the f4's image quality I prefer, but I couldn't put my finger on it and couldn't reliably tell the difference. The MTF lines for both lenses are essentially identical and as close to a straight line as you'll see (i.e. 'perfect').
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top